SpaceX demonstrates that it too can shower the Earth with debris

Australian media has reported that space debris found in New South Wales was indeed junk from a SpaceX mission, including one piece measuring nearly three meters in length. The black shard, found sticking out of the ground, is presumed to be Elon Musk's take on 2001's Monolith. The Register asked SpaceX to clarify, but we have …

[Mike 137]

Raising the odds?

"We're not sure just how often a meteor hits a UK university campus, but worldwide there's a 1 in 700,000 chance of being crushed by one, making it about 64 times more likely to happen than you winning the lottery" quoted with thanks from savethestudent.org. But maybe we're now raising the odds?

[Geoff May (no relation)]

Re: Raising the odds?

As long as we don't get to one in a million odds.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Raising the odds?

So what are the odds of being hit by a meteor while holding a winning lottery ticket ?

[Pierre 1970]

Re: Raising the odds?

C'ommon, don't be shy, Why not adding a lightning strike to the recipe?

[Stork]

Re: Raising the odds?

Elvis crashing a UFO on Nessie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Raising the odds?

Depends on whether you socialise with the type of people who are likely to mug you for a winning lottery ticket and who also have ready access to meteors*

(Obviously the pedant in me wants to say "extremely slim because they'll be meteorites by the time they're anywhere near you", but I won't because the other pedants will point out that you could be in a space vehicle passing through the atmosphere while holding said lottery ticket)

[Mike 137]

Re: Raising the odds?

"So what are the odds of being hit by a meteor while holding a winning lottery ticket ?"

"While holding" and "a winning lottery ticket" complicate the issue greatly as they're open to multiple interpretations, but if we reduce the lottery component to "having won" and assume we mean the jackpot, the probability of a jackpot in the UK lottery is 1/ 45057474 - approximately 2.22 x 10^-8. One in 700,000 (the probability of the meteor strike) approximates to 1.43 x 10^-6, and you multiply the two probabilities as the events are independent. So the conjoint probability of a lottery jackpot and being concurrently wiped out by a meteor is roughly 3.17 x 10^-14.

[heyrick]

Re: Raising the odds?

"3.17 x 10-14"

So, as a regular number, that's 317,000,000,000,000?

[abcdgoldfish]

Re: Raising the odds?

I'm not sure - by my math a probability of 3.17 x 10-14 is about 1 in 31,500,000,000,000 , taking the reciprocal . One of us is about 10 times luckier, or unluckier depending on your POV.

[heyrick]

Re: Raising the odds?

If you have a moment, how did you come up with 1 in 31,500,000,000,000?

I get how the number was worked out, though Google tells me (1.43 * 10e-6) * (2.22 * 10e-8) is 3.1746e-12, I'm guessing the -14 in the original is because there are two digits less after the decimal point so it needs shifted more?

The bit I'm stuck on is translating that notation into a "1 in X" value.

Genuine question - I have dyscalculia and really suck at maths.

[heyrick]

Re: Raising the odds?

Aha, if I do 1 / (3.17 x 10e-14), that comes out as 3.1545741e+12 which, if the 12 is how many zeros follow the original number, gives a 1 in 3,154,741,000,000 chance. Which amusingly is 10x less! That much more likely to be hit by a flying lump of rock whilst holding the jackpot winning lottery ticket. Wouldn't that suck. Wouldn't that be epic. I'm torn.

Is the calculation sort of right, or completely messed up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Raising the odds?

The confusion is largely due to the fact that 1/3.1746 = 0.3150 which are confusingly similar numbers in scientific notation and a power of ten shift is easy to miss.

At the root of it, your calculation of "(1.43 * 10e-6) * (2.22 * 10e-8)" should actually be 1/(1.43 * 10e-6) * 1/(2.22 * 10e-8) as probabilities are expressed as a "1 in x chance" and that produces a chance of 1 in 31,500,031,500,031.5 (or 1 in 3.15*10¹³)... and as a probability, that's 1/(3.15*10¹³) = 3.1746*10^-14 or as a percentage (ie x100) 0.0000000000031746%

[heyrick]

Re: Raising the odds?

Thank you, that was a very clear explanation.

For you ---->

[Version 1.0]

Re: Raising the odds?

Heyrick, if you have dyscalculia and really suck at maths then maybe you will become a new government minister after Boris is replaced?

[heyrick]

Re: Raising the odds?

Hmm, should I be aiming for the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps?

[I am David Jones]

Re: Raising the odds?

“as the events are independent” [Citation needed]

[Mike 137]

Re: Raising the odds?

"Citation needed"?

Not really. There can logically be no causal relationship between a meteor landing on you and you winning at the lottery, as they are driven by entirely different mechanisms that have no common factors. Not everything requires 'authority' to validate it. Sometimes all that's needed is a combination of careful observation, careful analysis and common sense (which is mot likely the way any 'authority' came up with its 'authoritative' finding in the first place).

[FrogsAndChips]

Re: Raising the odds?

r/whoosh

[Doctor Tarr]

Re: Raising the odds?

“ "While holding" and "a winning lottery ticket" complicate the issue greatly as they're open to multiple interpretations, but if we reduce the lottery component to "having won" and assume we mean the jackpot, the probability of a jackpot in the UK……”

Being pedantic, the odds are much greater. You’d have had to have won the lottery and not yet handed the ticket in and be holding it outside, unless the space rock was large enough. Also, does buying online and having a virtual ticket count? Do you keep a lottery ticket after winning?

Anyway, I’m boring myself now.

[cyberdemon]

Re: Raising the odds?

> So what are the odds of being hit by a meteor while holding a winning lottery ticket ?

Less likely than the existence of God, i'd say. (he'd most likely be the one throwing the meteor at you)

[45RPM]

Re: Raising the odds?

I thought that million to one chances crop up nine times out of ten?

[MachDiamond]

Re: Raising the odds?

"As long as we don't get to one in a million odds."

It would then be a dead certainty that everybody would be pelted with SpaceX debris. Most junk being launched currently is from SpaceX in terms of gross tonnage.

[yetanotheraoc]

Lucky streak

I've heard this before: the odds of getting hit by space junk are higher than the odds of winning the lottery (jackpot, one presumes). Yet various jackpots have been won multiple times per year, and space junk has hit individuals, by my count, zero times. (I have only seen reports of near misses, and not many of those.) So what exactly are the odds of getting hit by space junk?

[A Non e-mouse]

Re: Lucky streak

You need to include in your sums the number of lottery draws & space flights.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Lucky streak

The two are not directly comparable. Strikes from space are calculated by geography and are surprisingly common: you can view footage from a meteor strike in Siberia a couple of years ago. Fortunately, fatal strikes are very unusual.

Lotteries are individual and the odds vary between lotteries, though have nothing to do with the number of people taking part.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Lucky streak

"So what exactly are the odds of getting hit by space junk?"

There is one confirmed case of a woman (can I use that term?) being hit on the shoulder by space debris. If you swept clean the roof of a mediumish commercial building, you'd be able to find some micro-meteorites so it's not too big of a stretch to believe that people get hit by really small stuff quite often that they don't notice. How many times have you scratched your head (assuming you have hair) and found a tiny grain of "sand" and wondered where the heck that came from?

[Stevie]

Re: Raising the odds?

So it is vital to coordinate re-entry data when planning on collecting one’s winnings.

[DS999]

Re: Raising the odds?

making it about 64 times more likely to happen than you winning the lottery

Dammit! The only reason I'm playing the lottery in the first place is to build a meteor proof house, are you telling me that's a bad strategy?

[Marcelo Rodrigues]

Re: Raising the odds?

"Dammit! The only reason I'm playing the lottery in the first place is to build a meteor proof house, are you telling me that's a bad strategy?"

Only id tou go about with the winninf ticket on your hand.

Ask someone you can trust to get the money, and problem solved!

After all, our calcularions assumed the winner would be holding the ticket...

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Picturing

A bunch of Aussies crouching around it

One of them picks up a bone

Another throws a rock at him

And the first one knocks it over the boundary for a six, then they all open a tin

[Anonymous Coward]

1 in 700,000? That doesn't sound right to me (and needs a timescale). If annually, it means 10,000 people a year are crushed by meteors; if lifetime odds, then it's only around 150 a year. 150 is a reasonably small number but I would have thought such instances would make the news...

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

The MMB covers it up - obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't how odds work.

[Charlie Clark]

Liability

What if it had property or people? Liability needs clarifying quickly and fines imposed.

[Duncan Macdonald]

Re: Liability

As for aircraft debris - if it causes damage then the operator is liable. However the probability of causing damage or injury from a reentering spacecraft is extremely low. (The probability is MUCH higher during takeoff - many launches have exploded sending bits of debris into surrounding areas.)

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Liability

The probability per launch may be low but we're launching more and more of the buggers. See also the recent "touchdown" of part of the Chinese rocket. States can argue for immunity, and it can be difficult to get money from them. Different situation for private companies and their investors.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Liability

"States can argue for immunity,"

I just watched a video from an attorney in the US that pointed out that in Louisiana if you sue a government entity and win, they can not pay you and suffer no consequences. He was talking about a case where a police officer ran over and severely injured a person (no siren and in a hospital zone). The injured person's family sued and won a large judgement (the person isn't as good as new after being patched up in hospital). Years later, The Man doesn't feel like coughing up. Keep that in mind if you ever want to visit New Orleans.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Liability

That's ridiculous, surely they could have sued the man for damage to the police car

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Liability

https://www.theonion.com/police-experimenting-with-nonlethal-methods-to-give-spe-1849184259

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Liability

This is generally the case and in the UK is known as Crown immunity. You're even less likely to see your money if you're in another country. Of course US extraterroriality doesn't think this should necessarily be true for other countries: Magnitzky Act; seizure of Argentinian ships, etc.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Liability

Though wouldn't crown immunity prevent you from suing in the first place, rather than winning the case but being unable to enforce the decision?

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Liability

It's a moot point. IANAL but I think Crown immunity is a technically a defence. The main thing is that it is usually very hard in a court of law to make states liable for anything and even if they are liable, get any money from them because of the difficulty of enforcing sanctions. The ultima ratio for any state is the ability to make or change laws, even retroactively.

There are currently some interesting court cases in Europe generally related to pollution which will illustrate what is and isn't possible: the German constitutional court has ordered German lawmakers to pass meaningful laws regarding climate change; nitrogen emissions and particularly nitrate pollution of the water table are ticking time bombs in Germany and the Netherlands.

[Stevie]

Bah!

Do the fragments have an accoustic “Yeehaa!” whistle fitted?

[Doctor Syntax]

Anyone hoping to find Musk's Tesla in it is going to be disappointed.

[TMMITW]

Canberra near miss?

This crash site is not far from Canberra. There would certainly be harsh words if it had hit there. Australia will issue fines for littering. I saw the one in Esperance.

[Diogenes]

Re: Canberra near miss?

Had it hit Parliament House while it was in session there would have been rejoicing throughout the land. (NADT)

[Rikki Tikki]

Re: Canberra near miss?

Missed by about 120 years ... Dalgety was the original site chosen for the Australian federal capital.

If that had gone ahead, there would have been 4 university campuses conveniently available as targets.

[TMMITW]

Re: Canberra near miss?

Yikes! I did not know that.

Seriously, we really need to get control of all this space junk crashing to earth and smashing other orbiting things.

[MachDiamond]

Starlink, One Web and the race for megaconstellations

Starlink by itself is slated to include 42,000 operating satellites and doesn't take into account the ones that prematurely fail. With an expected lifespan of 5 years, that's going to be a C-ton of birds in a decade. Add to that One Web and Amazon's plans and also include all of the bits and pieces of launch debris that goes with the deployments and there could be showers of metal bits forcing people to build their homes a few meters underground for safety. I wonder if part of the reason for all of this is so Elon will be in a better position to sells his crazy idea of having levels and levels of roads in sewer pipes under cities.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Starlink, One Web and the race for megaconstellations

Most of them will burn up in atmosphere.

Compared to the 15,000 tons of rocks Zeus drops on us every year, 6000 tons of which reaches the ground

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Starlink, One Web and the race for megaconstellations

That's not going to help in a court of law because meteors are "acts of God" whereas bits of satellite falling from the sky are very much the problem of the owners. Though, to be fair, disposing of them is less of an issue than trying to dodge them or the EM emissions, but there are potential issues of what "burning up" actually means and whether it might have consequences for the atmosphere.

[Winkypop]

Strewth mate!

Fair suck of the sauce bottle!

Which of you drongos is flinging bits of an old rocket at us?!

Stone the flamin’ crows!

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Strewth mate!

G'day.

Mind if I call you Bruce, to save confusion?

[TMMITW]

Re: Strewth mate!

Trevor, I think.

[Neil Barnes]

Video of this alien artifact

may be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZDCRidVsxc&t=202s

[myhandler]

Re: Video of this alien artifact

The YouTube above links to it half way through - where it makes no sense.

Neil, remove that t=202s!

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Video of this alien artifact

Ooops, my bad, didn't see that. Too late now... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZDCRidVsxc